Northwest Calgary too crappy for future development

[SebC]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Se...419/story.html

A huge swath of northwest Calgary has hit a dreaded milestone, and it’s getting worse with each flush.

Suburban growth and redevelopment projects have pushed a key sewer pipe underneath Bowness to capacity, and city hall has confirmed it can’t complete a roughly $50-million secondary system until 2017.

To prevent more home sewer backups in the meantime, the city may put a four-year freeze on approving any new developments in that large area. It’s a move that covers 17 existing communities and undeveloped fringe lands, affecting everything from new homes in Crestmont to a condo project in Tuscany and an affordable housing project in Bowness.

Unfortunately, the Herald also went to a rather silly man for a quote, so allow me to refute him.

“It also speaks to — pardon my French — but the bulls**t argument that established areas are subsidizing the suburbs, because there’s all sorts of infrastructure upgrades that need to occur in the established areas and they’re being paid for by people who live in the suburbs,” said Mike Flynn, executive director of the Urban Development Institute.

When the infrastructure upgrades in established communities because of expansion at the suburbs, that's called "accounting for downstream effects". It's smart policy.

A development levy for infill is fine (to cover the cost of infill), but there's more to determing whether an area is a subsidizing or subsidized than just whether or not it receives infrastructure. It's a net subsidy that's important, and that includes revenue factors as well as costs.

[PsYcNeT]

Your headline is way better than the Herald's.

[You Need a Thneed]

I noticed that faulty logic too. The story itself explains why pretty well too.

[Bigtime]

Michael Flynn and the UDI are idiots, nothing to see here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I noticed that faulty logic too. The story itself explains why pretty well too.

Whats the faulty logic here? You have to dumb this down for me, because it makes sense that as we increase density in areas we have to increase capacity to do that?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whats the faulty logic here? You have to dumb this down for me, because it makes sense that as we increase density in areas we have to increase capacity to do that?

The faulty logic is in the idea that new suburbs are subsidizing this increased capacity. If new suburbs aren't recovering their own costs, the subsidy flows the other way, regardless of how much is spent on increasing crapper capacity.

[Sliver]

I'm surprised anybody in the NW even wants more development. It was my understanding thistle, dead grass and mosquito larvae are prime examples of nature's majesty and are not to be disturbed. That's the argument for keeping Nosehill ugly, anyway.

More on topic, the City needs to go even further with this type of foresight. The biggest thing that pisses me off lately is building all these giant communities, then after they're complete, feebly trying to upgrade the infrastructure (roads in particular) to account for the increased traffic volumes. Upgrading the roads should be the first step before the first foundation is poured in a new neighbourhood. The way we do it now is back asswords.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jammies

The faulty logic is in the idea that new suburbs are subsidizing this increased capacity. If new suburbs aren't recovering their own costs, the subsidy flows the other way, regardless of how much is spent on increasing crapper capacity.

Maybe none of the communities are paying their way? If the suburbs aren't and now we have to upgrade services to these other communities as a result of densification then it appears possible?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe none of the communities are paying their way? If the suburbs aren't and now we have to upgrade services to these other communities as a result of densification then it appears possible?

Hmm, let me put it another way: that you have to spend money on upgrading current infrastructure does not prove the suburbs are subsidizing older developments. It's a non sequitur. It could be *part* of an argument that this is happening, but by itself it is proof of nothing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jammies

Hmm, let me put it another way: that you have to spend money on upgrading current infrastructure does not prove the suburbs are subsidizing older developments. It's a non sequitur. It could be *part* of an argument that this is happening, but by itself it is proof of nothing.

Ya. I agree with that I suppose. I just think that we have a growing city and are adding households, regardless of where we're adding them. It appears that the two "sides" don't want to bear the costs to add households in the "other" areas. It costs money to add them, no matter where we do that though, so its kind of a pointless argument. It becomes even more pointless when you consider that the "boundary" for what would be considered is so ambiguous. Who knows what is considered too far out anymore?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Michael Flynn and the UDI are idiots, nothing to see here.

But they call themselves an "institute". Surely that makes them more than just a developers' advocacy group!

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

But they call themselves an "institute". Surely that makes them more than just a developers' advocacy group!

Hey man, it says "URBAN" not, "SUBURBAN".

They are obviously looking to increase density and reduce sprawl.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sliver

More on topic, the City needs to go even further with this type of foresight. The biggest thing that pisses me off lately is building all these giant communities, then after they're complete, feebly trying to upgrade the infrastructure (roads in particular) to account for the increased traffic volumes. Upgrading the roads should be the first step before the first foundation is poured in a new neighbourhood. The way we do it now is back asswords.

When has the city ever had any foresight with any of their road construction? Crowchild Trail is permanently screwed at the University Drive/16th Avenue underpass where it inexcusably bottlenecks to two lanes. There was never even the foresight to leave enough room to add one more lane and now it's doomed to always be the starting point of traffic backing up at the Bow Trail overpass.

Remember that Beddington Trail stretch from Country Hills Blvd to Deerfoot that got all newly developed only to be ripped up less than 6 years later to add more lanes. What the hell kind of foresight is that when a few years after completion it's determined it's not enough lanes?

Deerfoot is pretty self explanatory and while the city can claim the sudden growth of the city there can be no excuse for not leaving room for any future provisions as this city seems to do so often.

[Brannigans Law]

Sounds fine to me. Look at all the space surrounding Skyview and the Airport... this should be an area filled in before we make Calgary sprawl out even more. My friend at work just started building in Legacy.. this freaking place is almost on DeWintons door step. Wtf? At this pace in my lifetime Okotoks will be swallowed up by this city.

[PsYcNeT]

Lack of foresight, or in-cahoots conspiracy by the road development groups?

:tinfoil:

[Traditional_Ale]

If we get things right the first time, we won't be able to steal more tax money to do it again later.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Lack of foresight, or in-cahoots conspiracy by the road development groups?

:tinfoil:

Actually when it comes to conspiracy when the city pays companies to repave city roads and they do such a terrible job that some of the bad spots within less than two years are worse than before the repaving (cough, John Laurie Blvd and Brennder Drive N.W., cough) is there any recourse?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ya. I agree with that I suppose. I just think that we have a growing city and are adding households, regardless of where we're adding them. It appears that the two "sides" don't want to bear the costs to add households in the "other" areas. It costs money to add them, no matter where we do that though, so its kind of a pointless argument. It becomes even more pointless when you consider that the "boundary" for what would be considered is so ambiguous. Who knows what is considered too far out anymore?

Yes, the faulty logic is this.

The guy think that because new infrastructure will be happening in the older established areas, that the new suburbs are subsidizing those older areas.

However, what's being talked about here isn't replacing the infrastucture for the old established areas, it's replacing the backbones of the entire system. The backbones just happen to be in the older established areas.

All new development has contributed to the need, most of which was suburban, but that' really besides the point here. There isn't really anything to make an argument urban vs suburban here, as it's only about the total number of units developed, really. It doesn't matter whather those units were developed as single family homes way out in the suburbs, or in Condo towers beside train stations.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Yes, the faulty logic is this.

The guy think that because new infrastructure will be happening in the older established areas, that the new suburbs are subsidizing those older areas.

However, what's being talked about here isn't replacing the infrastucture for the old established areas, it's replacing the backbones of the entire system. The backbones just happen to be in the older established areas.

All new development has contributed to the need, most of which was suburban, but that' really besides the point here. There isn't really anything to make an argument urban vs suburban here, as it's only about the total number of units developed, really. It doesn't matter whather those units were developed as single family homes way out in the suburbs, or in Condo towers beside train stations.

This I completely agree with. That makes complete sense, and I think that in a way it does fly in the face of the entire discussion about urban v. suburban? It costs money to add households and the current system has to increase its capacity to handle the new households one way or another. The idea that we can just add density and not have to increase funding for things like sewage and infrastructure isn't true. The scary part to me is $250M for this section of the city though....so we're looking at say $1B for the city as a whole. That's an enormous amount of money.

[Jimmy Stang]

Honestly curious: typically how large in diameter are these sewer mains? I remember as a kid exploring "BC3" which was a stormwater outlet just north of Sandstone right around where Beddington Trail is now. It must have been 3 metres in diameter, so I am picturing that these sewer mains must be at least that large.